Analog revival? Increase in film sales spurs Kodak to bring back Ektachrome

The list of discontinued film stocks is lengthy and after Kodak pulled the plug on our beloved Kodachrome, it seemed like any film could be next on the chopping block. But perhaps those dark days are behind us because today Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris announced they will be bringing back a different film stock: Ektachrome, which was discontinued in 2012.

The companies' decision to raise the film from the dead is directly related to a recent increase in demand for analog film. Yep, you read that right. So does this mean that film photography is about to start down a similar path of revival as we've seen from vinyl records, which are currently selling at a 25 year high? We sure wouldn't mind.

From the Kodak Alaris announcement:

“Sales of professional photographic films have been steadily rising over the last few years, with professionals and enthusiasts rediscovering the artistic control offered by manual processes and the creative satisfaction of a physical end product. The reintroduction of one of the most iconic films is supported by the growing popularity of analog photography and a resurgence in shooting film. Resurgence in the popularity of analog photography has created demand for new and old film products alike.”

Ektachrome is a color reversal film and was first developed in the 1940's. Used for decades by National Geographic photographers, it's been long favored it due to its fine grain and excellent color reproduction.

Rochester, NY-based Eastman Kodak will manufacture the film and sell it in cine formats, while the independent, UK-based company Kodak Alaris will sell the photographic version.

So come the end of 2017, you'll once again be able to pick up a 35mm roll of it. And you've likely got a bearded, glasses-wearing hipster with a turntable to thank for that.

What do you think of the prospect of an analog revival? Let us know in the comments.

Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film

Las Vegas, NV, Thursday, January 05, 2017 --

To the delight of film enthusiasts across the globe, Eastman Kodak Company today announced plans to bring back one of its most iconic film stocks. Over the next 12 months, Kodak will be working to reformulate and manufacture KODAK EKTACHROME Film for both motion picture and still photography applications. Initial availability is expected in the fourth quarter of 2017.

KODAK EKTACHROME Film has a distinctive look that was the choice for generations of cinematographers before it was discontinued in 2012. The film is known for its extremely fine grain, clean colors, great tones and contrasts.

“It is such a privilege to reintroduce KODAK EKTRACHROME Film to the cinematography community,” said Steven Overman, Kodak’s chief marketing officer and president of the Consumer and Film Division. “We are seeing a broad resurgence of excitement about capturing images on film. Kodak is committed to continuing to manufacture film as an irreplaceable medium for image creators to capture their artistic vision. We are proud to help bring back this classic.”

Kodak will produce EKTACHROME at its film factory in Rochester, N.Y., and will market and distribute the Super 8 motion picture film version of EKTACHROME Film directly.

Kodak Alaris, an independent company since 2013, also plans to offer a still format KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTACHROME Film for photographers in 135-36x format. KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTACHROME Film is a color positive film, also known as “reversal,” “slide,” or “transparency” film. Unlike all of the other KODAK PROFESSIONAL Films available today, which are color negative films, EKTACHROME generates a positive image that can be viewed or projected once it is exposed and processed. This makes it ideal for high-resolution projection or presentations. It is also well suited for scanning and printing onto a range of professional-grade photographic media. Availability is expected in the fourth quarter of 2017.

The great thing about film is that it works with my mid 1930s LTM Leica and my mid 2000s Canon EOS Elan 7n. No expensive new camera needed every two/three years to shoot film. Money saved will pay for a lot of film processing.

I fully agree, film is the most inexpensive way to go for full-frame as well as medium format photography when you are bored with digital. After experimenting with it, and if you don't like, you can resell your gear at the same price you had bought. A film camera is just another piece in our kit next to you digital cameras.

This, if you don't take many shots and have the gear, film is more economical than digital - yes, you read that right - I calculate that a full frame digital would cost me 400 GPB/yr in finance/depreciation. That's a lot of rolls developed and scanned.

Whereas my film gear is likely appreciating, and I probably spend a quarter of what digital costs, for having the creative options full-frame gives you. Combined with a 1" sensor Rx100, it's a seriously good combination.

I'd also observe that viewers who do not know or care where the pictures come from, normally prefer the film ones.

I love that film bails me out of lack of skill much of the time.

I've scanned Kodachrome from the 1940s and the colors are still excellent (unlike some other films from that era that have faded or washed out). I'm still in mourning for Kodachrome 25.

But surprisingly the analog film market is growing, while the digital camera market faces a huge crisis. Fuji ismaking more money again with analog film compared to digital products. Film industry is going back to analog film (Star Wars, Tarantino and many others). True, film will not replace digital in the future. It´s an enthusiast product within a specific market niche. But the same is true for high-end DSLRs...

Thank you for noting that. Working slowly, measuring the light, needing to THINK about each and every exposure - you certainly do learn along the way. And the development of the craft is rewarding. Of course with digital, you can spray and prey and hope you got some meaningful pictures.

Oh Darn! I just sold my old Nikon F2. I sure don't want to dig out any more chromes or negs to scan. If I had to spot and fix up one more of those, I think I'd scream. Not going back into a smelly darkroom, nor wanting to make trips to a lab. Slide projection ...whatever for?

Grasping at straws? The same Eastman Kodak that made a fateful decision to suppress their development of their invention, the digital sensor camera? BTW whatever became of those PixPro MFT cameras & lenses? I see there are a few used 400mm Fieldpro f/6.7 lenses for sale on eBay. Kinda sad.

Yes, of course. Use a light table and 6x aspheric Schneider loupe for personal experience or a projector. A 35mm slide delivers the resolution of a 8K digital projector which today costs more than a luxury car. Not to speak about medium format slides...Regarding stability: A have some 40 year old Fuji slides used hundred times with my Leica projector. I can´t see this degradation for E6 slides handled properly...

You don't have to use it, it's just available for those that prefer film. I have nothing against digital cameras, I've used them for years. Sold them all because I prefer film. I process C41/E6& B/W myself. If I want to behold the beauty of slide film on a light table I can do that and it looks amazing. If I shot 6x6 I can project them without damage on my medium format projector. I have a drum scanner if I need that. I just love the process from start to finish. It keeps my in photography. I didn't love the digital process, there was something missing for me.

@Fleabag. Some people simply don't know what it means to look at 6x9 Color slides... if they would they probably would try it out. Scanned pictures are also quite useable, especially if you can get professional mediumformat-equipment used for $300 instead of digital Mediumformat @>10000$.

Maybe they realized that a camera without a proper film medium makes no sense? I´m pretty confident that camera and film will reach the market. Kodak is quite successful as movie film industry is going back to analog materials...

Let's hope you're right. I'd like to try this out one day as I was just born when super 8 was first popular. Now in my 30's, I have found a love for film photography through my Leica cameras so this would be next on my to do list.

Nothing wrong with bringing this slide film back but as others have mentioned, development is not easy to find and is expensive. And ektachrome was not that unique of a look for me to really enjoy the hassle; in the end you have to scan them anyway to do anything as cibachrome printing is not available anymore. At least with B&W you can develop your own and print your own if you are brave enough...

Hmmm...large images, high quality. My camera club buddy has a Jobo developer. And I'll bet i could find an old carousel projector for cheap to show pictures on my white wall. This could be fun. I've never shot slide film before.

I love Fomapan 100 b&w film & developing it myself. I take a weekly darkroom class at an arts center too. It's relaxing.

The RB/RZ67 is a great system. Try some Provia/Velvia slide film. You will not be disappointed. For selected images you can achieve 100 megapixel scans from medium format film using a drum scanner. A Phase One MF digital system with such a resolution costs 45.000€.

@FBoneOne. At the moment they have not said what process the film will use. Some Ektachromes were E2, and the later one was E6. I assume that Kodak are considering how to distribute the chemicals along with the film. So we cannot say it will be expensive as we do not know.

It´s clearly mentioned in the press release:"EKTACHROME Film is developed using the E6 process, available in many professional labs today. Coincident with the Q4 launch, the KODAK PROFESSIONAL Film App will be updated to include Professional Labs where E6 processing is available in addition to labs where color negative and B&W film processing are currently featured."

@tom43you're right. I didn't search out the press release. Assumed all the info was above. The line about 'reformulate' made me wonder what process it would be.

@cdembrey£4.89 is what we can pay for 35mm E6 process only, in the UK at AG Photographic. Surprised it costs so much more in the US.

And to return to the OP's comment. 'Expensiveness' is relative. £4.89 is fine by me , and more importantly (for me) we will have a new *colour reversal Super 8* by the end of the year. And one we can feasibly develop at home, thus cutting costs, if we choose.

Not sure why people have to compare film with digital anyway. No room for both?

Many thanks, Kodak! And guys, come on: Slide film has to be seen on a light table or by projection in all its beauty. By digitalization 90% of its character gets lost...

A Fuji Velvia on a light table is still unsurpassed by any digital file seen on a display. Most seem to have forgotten the colors and brilliance of slide film. Film is colorful, but misses the candy look seen too often today.

I still have my light table, projector and magnifier but I don't think I have used them in at least 5 years... I agree that the look of a well exposed Velvia slide is something that should be experienced at least once :-)

Thanks for clearing that up. Just remember as a kid that the classroom had a slide projector and no big TVs or digital projectors like now. Always thought it was straight film. I probably should read more about it. I have acquired a bunch of SLR cameras as kits for their lenses but they may be worth something in the future.

Kodak offered their "Photo CD" service a long time ago but it never caught on. The scans were so so and only 18MPs. If your goal is to have digital files I see little reason to shoot film today unless you just like using a particular film camera.

While I have several pieces of software that can recreate film looks I have not used them. All films had some shortfalls that I created their looks but recreating that look in fau-digital does not excite me.

Slide film is not for the inexperienced, exposure latitude is about zero and with only 36 images to the role you need to be frugal about what you shoot. If it is ASA 100 better get out your fast lens.

Likely as not most people shooting film will sooner or latter scan them into a digital format. The Film eco-system (Film, Film Cameras, Printing chemistry, paper, etc) is what would be required. Cibachrome printing was the best silver printing technology but it too has been discontinued. So not sure it makes sense to shoot in film only to scan it into digital to use it.

Fuji's Classic Chrome simulation doesn't look like Kodachrome at all, in my experience (shot plenty of both). I don't know for sure if Fuji intended it to or not, but I don't think so because I imagine they would have gotten a lot closer if that had been their aim.

I certainly take your point, but digital causes at least the same level of pollution - e.g. rainforest-covered mountains in New Guinea, devastated for the mining of copper and other metals used for electronic products; mercury discharged into rivers by gold-panners in Amazonia, to acquire gold for metal contacts etc. Silicon, plastic, metal, glass etc all have to come from somewhere, and in nearly all cases it is the rainforests and cloudforests that disappear to get access to the raw products.

In the digital era most consumers buy a new camera model every 3-4 years. That was completely different in the analog era. Most cameras from the 60´s and 70´s still work perfectly today. Most of the materials for film development don´t pollute the environment...overall environmental impact might be lower.

blurred vision - True, but there are literally thousands of scientific reports proving that the extraction of the raw materials used in our digital cameras and other electronic devices does have a devastating effect on the natural environment and wildlife that it supports.

If there's more interest in film someday it may be developed a new process with new chemicals that are completely environment friendly, and it would be obviously compatible with even '30s cameras. Digital would never be environment friendly.

It might be fun to try again... lets see, new batteries, where did I store that slide projector... do I even still have it? Where can I get it developed... $40 bucks +#$T!! Congrats to those who still shoot analog :) Here is something you might enjoy watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HszEKQjGvQEHAGD, Bob :)

Well Davinator... congratulations! Lets see... last year I took a 6 day trip to the Finger Lakes area in NY. I took over 800 snaps, a somewhat low volume for me (bad weather). As for $6.00 CA/roll for 36 snaps... not bad. For me, in the US, 800 snaps with E-6 processed slide film at approximately $9.00 per 36 exposures would equal around 22 rolls x $9 = $198... not including shipping. My vacation shots cost me NOTHING... well, that's not exactly true... my wife probably spent over $200 shopping for gifts :( Look, I spent 40 years shooting 120 & 35mm film of all types... and enjoyed every shot. If you like to shoot film, that's great! For me, I no longer have to wait for the outcome or budget the number of pictures I take. Far less surprises/disappointments with digital... just my opinion :) HAGD, Bob

Bob, 800 is a... LOT of pictures. Even for digital. How many of them are actually keepers? If film has taught me anything it's restraint.... don't take a million pictures of the same or similar thing. Has helped me too in my digital workflow, less pictures to throw out, even if it doesn't save money it saves time.

Greetings Colin... Yes, for me, 16-17 years ago even 80 snaps seemed like a LOT. It was a pain keeping/storing prints, negatives, slides... not to mention how to retrieve what I wanted to see. When I stopped shooting film, I had a large room full of slide trays boxes, file cabinets of prints, an old refrigerator with rolls of film purchased on sale and .... oh well, you get the picture :) Now everything I shoot is neatly stored/backed up on small (inexpensive) storage media... accessible and printable as quickly as I can click a mouse. I guess I take a lot of snaps because I can... ain't technology beautiful!! or, being an old Navy guy, whatever floats your boat :) HAVE A GREAT DAY Bob

I'll buy some Ektachrome. Hell I've still got some unshot lying around here somewhere. What I really want is Kodachrome. Just because. Either way I'm glad that film is generating new interest, perhaps in people who never knew it. ...rediscovering the artistic control offered by manual processes and the creative satisfaction of a physical end product...

Thank you, Kodak Alaris, and I hope you'll consider offering 120-size Ektachrome too. I'm guessing a fair number of people who go through the "trouble" of shooting film nowadays want the benefits of medium-format film. Lastly, as a Baby Boomer, I can assure you it's not just hipsters who use film.

Agree entirely on the 120 idea; first thing I thought of. If sales are good maybe they'll consider it. Without thinking too hard on it, I think it's largely a packaging issue (i.e. they'd have to re-create the machines needed to mate the film to paper backing etc.)

I would never shoot 35mm film again, but there's an attraction to the idea of making some 6 x 6, 6 x 7, or 6 x 9 slides/negs.

The costs actually make me a better photographer. I shoot very thoughtfully when I'm shooting film. The result is that my keeper rate skyrockets. That's one of the big appeals of film photography for me.

Back in the day we abandoned E6 because of the expense of EPA and silver recovery issues. Today, I'd need a good, dust free scan to carry on with the work flow in Photoshop. Give me Velvia (neg. film) and a good professional color printer.

err ... wasn't Vevia E6? I agree however that I prefer Neg over chromes for making prints (or scans) as it has so much more shoulder. Unless I'm shooting something like 6x9 (in 120) or larger if I had to use Chromes I'd just as soon use digital and skip the scanning stage.

Side issue: Funny thing was, Ilford's XP-1(black and white) chemistry which was actually C-41, was better than Kodak C-41 chemistry for Kodak colour films! It produced better results and lasted longer. This is another consideration for commercial colour film processing, would they have enough business to PAY for the cost gallons of chemistry or would it go bad waiting and end-up being dumped out? This is what shut-down a lot of labs, the cost per roll due to slow business was too much. Same thing happens with home processors, they have to shoot enough film to use up the chemistry before it goes bad.

which is why (as a home processor) I use actual black and white chemistry D-76 not C-41 which is actually better long term archivally than the XP-1 , cheaper to work with (than C-41) and lasts surprisingly long when stored in air tight bottles (I use wine bottles with stelvin caps). Of course these days I don't bother with 35mm and use 120 or 4x5 sheets ...

As someone who has been taking photographs since the 1960's, I fully understand the "creative satisfaction of a physical end product", but I sure don't want to return to the days of tramlined films, 2-3 week processing times, excessive grain, almost non-existent exposure tolerance, storage problems etc etc. Move forwards, not backwards, and who the hell is "kodak" now - presumably someone in China is banging this stuff out? Getting it processed in Europe is a virtual no-go, and ridiculously expensive, and I don't really fancy processing 200-300 films myself after an expedition.

Sending off my holiday films to "Bonus Print" and waiting for the postman to delivery the prints two weeks later and hearing that satisfying thud on the mat. And the excitement of going through the prints is something that I really, really miss.

So, bring back an arguably inferior product just because it's easy to process? That makes business sense, but not artistic sense. Whatever Kodak is nowadays, I'm pretty sure it's a business, and not an artist co-op, so Ektachrome it is.

Kodachrome is not just harder to process; it's unbelievably complex to process. The Kodak process (i.e. K-14) was a complete production line -- needed a large factory floor and multi tens of millions of dollars to set up. Simply untenable now. Kodak only had two lines in the entire U.S. when I went to work in a camera store in 1987, and Kodachrome was very popular then.

In the 1990s, somebody developed a way to process Kodachrome in a cine processor -- i.e. a machine that could be installed in roughly the same space as a large minilab, and which cost something less than tens of millions of dollars. But only a handful of labs ever bought and ran them -- even in the heyday of film. I know of only two that ever operated in the U.S. So I think it would be folly to assume that any decent infrastructure of such machines could be built back up again. And that's assuming the chemicals could be recreated economically.

Also Kodachrome lost it's popularity to Velvia. The pluses for Kodachrome was its longevity but the pumped up color saturation of Velvia and other transparencies seemed to outweigh the benefits of Kodachrome.

film is fun to see the result, but the process is too much. Also film processing is wasteful/ not environmentally friendly. All the water being use for a single roll and the chemical being dump down the drain. Why i do it once a few years.

The waiting for processed slides to arrive, the processing of monochrome film and holding it to the light for the first time time to see the images, the magical appearance of the picture in the developer tray in the darkroom.

I highly doubt the environmental impact caused by mining the minuscule amounts of metals used in digital circuit boards for digital cameras is anywhere near the amount caused by the production and development of film. But who knows, perhaps I am wrong, after all I have never actually shot any film. I would definitely try shooting film someday though if they ever create biodegradable film (doesn't seem completely impossible, seeing as biodegradable plastics are already quite common). As for the argument of buying a new camera every year: nobody forces you to participate in that endless cycle. I don't get the people who never skip a generation and more so those who don't even think of selling their old gear so at least someone else can still use it! But maybe I would think differently about this if I had thousands of $ to blow on the latest gear ;) (although I'd like to think I'd still rather blow it on Voigtländers and PL glass than for example an E-M1 Mk. II).

I came from deep in the film era too and never left, been shooting digital for 23 years to boot. In the past 10 years I have sank about a quarter million dollars into building the next phase of my photographic career: 100% pure black and white fine art printed in a new 500 square foot darkroom and all it's associated wares. It's already starting to pay for it self. Not everyone who came from film learned to hate on it and claim digital to be the only way to a fine photograph...

Environmentally speaking, it's comparable to chemistry used in agriculture, but in much lower quantities. Usually quite diluted too, for processing per single roll or sheet of paper. And of course you don't flush it down the drain, that's not allowed here, you properly dispose of it in places which treat chemical waste.

We had to archive our projects (building model) in architecture with ektachrome (and turn it into slide), because the professors said so in the early 2000s. I didn' t know the different and did as they say. Use the kodachrome for regular stuff (later just got the fuji as it was cheaper). Today I still shoot film (once a year) but MF with kodak portra for portrait, it has a softer look to it.

For those who don't know, if you want to develop it at home and have no local supplier for the chemistry, it'll cost you about $50 for the shipping because they are classed as a hazardous commodity. So it's not going to be cheap to do it like the old days.

I purchase the Tetenal 4-bath kit from Freestyle. Shipping is not too outrageous and the cost of the chemicals is not that much more than C-41. If you invest in a Jobo processor, it is not very difficult to work the process. Totaling up my budget for chemicals last year vs. what it would have cost to send all my E-6 to a lab, I saved approximately $200.

Funny thing is, now that digital is the thing I have all sorts of really nice back in the day film gear-such as the Canon EOS 630 in pristine shape with matching Canon flash (it zooms in and out with the zoom lens!).

Back then, all I had was a Pentax SP500 with a Kmart flash. I couldn't find glass for it to save my bacon because it was threadmount, and being a teenager I couldn't afford nicer gear. Nowadays, I just got some really nice m42 mount glass for a few bucks on eBay that would have cost me $300 back when that was a lot of money.

So in a way, it's kind of bittersweet to see this whole resurgence of film, in a time when my modern day digital gear is so easy to use and so competent-oh, and film takes 3 weeks to get developed since the last local C41 machine (Fred Meyer in Issaquah, WA) broke its leg and they had to shoot it.

I'm glad to see ANY film being re-introduced. but I've never been a big fan of Ektachrome. What I'd really like to see is the reissue of PKR and PKM -- and widespread processing so I don't ever have to deal with Dwayne's.

Yes. Dwayne's is the only lab that has ever scratched every roll of film in a shipment and then tried to blame it on my camera bodies. In my opinion their quality control became very half assed when they were the only lab still processing Kodachrome. I used them because for K-14 I had no other choice. I'll never use them again.

Latest in-depth reviews

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.